(Hey look! First post!)
If you aren’t familiar with the story, here it is.
So, I originally heard about this story on MSNBC this morning. And, to be honest, it pisses me off, for a couple reasons.
First off, the argument that “Fultz’s right to free speech ends where Nani Lawrence’s right to privacy begins” is complete and utter bullshit, and her lawyer needs to stop using that as the primary defense.
The primary defense should be the claim that the billboard isn’t legitimate because the woman in question did not have an abortion. Well, that is all fine and dandy. The billboard is then defamation. Lawrence then just needs to sue Fultz on the grounds of libel. And, in New Mexico, libel can be consider a criminal offense (New Mexico Statute Annotated, ยง30-11-1). At the least, it would get the billboard taken down pretty damn fast.
However, it is wrong on the deepest level to argue that privacy takes precedence over free speech. That claim is false. Free speech is a right garunteed by the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Privacy is not a right garunteed by any document of the U.S. Government. The fact that a judge would order the billboard be taken down on these grounds is outragous, and the ruling should be thrown out lest a precedent be set that you can’t say anything that invades someone’s privacy.
What if it was illegal to say anything that “invaded someone’s privacy” (note those scare quotes; the term ‘invaded privacy’ is completely subjective)? It would make it illegal to say anything bad about anyone, even if the statement was true!
Anyway…. if the statement he is making is true, then he is well within his right to put up a billboard that says whatever the fuck he wants. And what made me angry when I first heard this story reported on MSNBC is their report that a poll which they conducted returned the result that something around 80% of people thought that the billboard went too far and should be taken down. What the fuck is wrong with you idiots? Do you not know the content of the founding documents? You know, the ones which most people will fervently defend when they are challenged? I mean, if you’re going to follow a 224-year-old document (which, in my opinion, is as retarded as following a 1600-year-old book), you might as well know the contents. The only time you can “go to far” concerning your First Amdendment right is when you commit libel or slander.
Thats all for this story.
